Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice

In Ann M. Johns' article, "Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice", she discusses the difference between John Swales article and James Gee's articles' opinions of discourse communities.  Swales main argument is that being involved in a discourse community doesn't necessarily mean that you belong.  Gee's main argument is that the home is a dominant discourse to everyone unless people don't have a home.  If they don't have a home they make a dominant discourse community through "mushfake". While keeping these all in mind, Johns goes into detail about four main concepts these writers forget to mention.  Cost of affiliation, issues of authority, conventions/anti-conventionalism and dialogue and critique.  Cost of affiliation mainly discusses the concept of how everyone grows up and goes to school.  When they attend school, they find new discourse communities but never have to truly leave their dominant one of their family. Issues authority is the idea that each group has rules and guidelines.  For each group there will always be "authoritive utterances that set the tone" of how it's supposed to operate.  Whether it just be within the family household or a government agency.  There are natural born leaders everywhere.  Without a dominant force a group cannot flourish.  The third thing Johns talks about is conventions and anti-conventionalism.  While this was a hard concept for me to truly understand, what I believe she means is each group has different roles and they are constantly changing as time moves on.  The titles may slightly change, but group members cannot be forever.  However, the concrete rules are usually laid and are often followed.  But there will always be people with anti-conventionalistic ideas.  Willing to break those common conventions set by a discourse community.  The last thing she talks about is dialogue & critique.  A commonality amongst Swales, Gee and Johns.